|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 25 2016 23:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 23:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 25 2016 23:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 25 2016 14:53 woody60707 wrote:On September 25 2016 13:18 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2016 11:55 biology]major wrote:On September 25 2016 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 25 2016 11:48 biology]major wrote:
This is just poor training, they could have taken a defensive posture and called for backup. No excuses for this kind of killing. I'm sure it will be fixed though. And what would have happened if they had called for backup? Then they have 4-6 police instead of 1-2. the sitation doesn't change at all heck it makes it worse as more bullets can go off in a crowded neighborhood. And a defensive posture? What the hell is that suppose to be when you're pointing your gun at him anyway. It means you take cover and keep repeating commands, surround him when back up arrives and basically force him to be the aggressor before shooting him. Pretty much this. If you can't resolve a situation yourself without killing the guy and there is no immediate threat then just get more tools and try to change the situation. He was an immediate threat. That's why they shot. As mentioned in this thread and several other places, what passes for "immediate threat" in a number of these police shootings would get soldiers punished in a war zone if they were so trigger-happy with their weapons. That's because its comparing two different things. One can start a large scale war, another can only start a riot. Warzone kinda implies the war has already started... but you know, whatever you need to say to convince yourself there is no systematic problem with the US police force.
You guys are saying a lot of things without offering any solutions.
|
On September 26 2016 00:24 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 23:41 Gorsameth wrote:On September 25 2016 23:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 25 2016 23:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 25 2016 14:53 woody60707 wrote:On September 25 2016 13:18 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2016 11:55 biology]major wrote:On September 25 2016 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 25 2016 11:48 biology]major wrote:
This is just poor training, they could have taken a defensive posture and called for backup. No excuses for this kind of killing. I'm sure it will be fixed though. And what would have happened if they had called for backup? Then they have 4-6 police instead of 1-2. the sitation doesn't change at all heck it makes it worse as more bullets can go off in a crowded neighborhood. And a defensive posture? What the hell is that suppose to be when you're pointing your gun at him anyway. It means you take cover and keep repeating commands, surround him when back up arrives and basically force him to be the aggressor before shooting him. Pretty much this. If you can't resolve a situation yourself without killing the guy and there is no immediate threat then just get more tools and try to change the situation. He was an immediate threat. That's why they shot. As mentioned in this thread and several other places, what passes for "immediate threat" in a number of these police shootings would get soldiers punished in a war zone if they were so trigger-happy with their weapons. That's because its comparing two different things. One can start a large scale war, another can only start a riot. Warzone kinda implies the war has already started... but you know, whatever you need to say to convince yourself there is no systematic problem with the US police force. You guys are saying a lot of things without offering any solutions.
The solution has been given repeatedly.
Train your cops properly so they know how to deal with a dangerous situation without shooting first.
The vast majority of these high profile shootings could have been prevented with proper training.
Heck how long ago was it, 1-2 weeks?, where we had a cop getting fired for not killing a man who was a danger to no one but himself.
The rest of the Western world manages to properly train their police force. Even if you take into account the increased gun violence in the US.
Train your officers and stop accepting 'shoot first, never ask questions' as an acceptable stance.
|
On September 26 2016 00:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 00:24 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 25 2016 23:41 Gorsameth wrote:On September 25 2016 23:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 25 2016 23:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 25 2016 14:53 woody60707 wrote:On September 25 2016 13:18 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2016 11:55 biology]major wrote:On September 25 2016 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 25 2016 11:48 biology]major wrote:
This is just poor training, they could have taken a defensive posture and called for backup. No excuses for this kind of killing. I'm sure it will be fixed though. And what would have happened if they had called for backup? Then they have 4-6 police instead of 1-2. the sitation doesn't change at all heck it makes it worse as more bullets can go off in a crowded neighborhood. And a defensive posture? What the hell is that suppose to be when you're pointing your gun at him anyway. It means you take cover and keep repeating commands, surround him when back up arrives and basically force him to be the aggressor before shooting him. Pretty much this. If you can't resolve a situation yourself without killing the guy and there is no immediate threat then just get more tools and try to change the situation. He was an immediate threat. That's why they shot. As mentioned in this thread and several other places, what passes for "immediate threat" in a number of these police shootings would get soldiers punished in a war zone if they were so trigger-happy with their weapons. That's because its comparing two different things. One can start a large scale war, another can only start a riot. Warzone kinda implies the war has already started... but you know, whatever you need to say to convince yourself there is no systematic problem with the US police force. You guys are saying a lot of things without offering any solutions. The solution has been given repeatedly. Train your cops properly so they know how to deal with a dangerous situation without shooting first. The vast majority of these high profile shootings could have been prevented with proper training. Heck how long ago was it, 1-2 weeks?, where we had a cop getting fired for not killing a man who was a danger to no one but himself. The rest of the Western world manages to properly train their police force. Even if you take into account the increased gun violence in the US. Train your officers and stop accepting 'shoot first, never ask questions' as an acceptable stance.
Its not about the training, its about passing the policies to go ahead with the training.
In that case, you are thinking of revamping the entire justice system.
And believe me, there are A LOT more dirt in the justice system than training cops.
|
On September 26 2016 00:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 19:47 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2016 15:58 Doodsmack wrote:Top Donald Trump surrogate and attorney Michael Cohen struggled to explain Tuesday why his boss demonized those who accused Bill Clinton of rape and sexual impropriety in the 1990’s but now believes those accusations, saying that Trump was just “being a good friend” at the time.
“He defended Bill Clinton for years. He said the same allegations that you guys are talking about now were a waste of time, were wrong, were hollow, that Bill Clinton was a terrific guy. That he was a great president, that the impeachment was wrong, that it was a waste of time…” the host of CNN’s New Day Chris Cuomo rattled off.
“He was a private citizen who was friendly with the Clintons and he was trying to protect a friend,” Cohen explained. “Now, it’s a different game. It’s 2016, he is the Republican presidential nominee.” http://www.mediaite.com/tv/top-staffer-trumps-demonization-of-bill-clinton-accusers-in-90s-was-just-being-a-true-friend/ Back when he was a friend, it was ok for him to do heinous, despicable things, but becoming the Republican nominee has given me a new perspective, and I can now condemn him for heinous, despicable things. This is one of the dumbest moral arguments I have heard in a while... Yeah, I dunno why you are posting pro-Trump articles when you're so against him. Trump has bounced back in the polls from the ground he lost in the last two days, and he's opening up larger and larger leads in all the states he needs to win. He only needs to steal one more state from Hillary until we have a new US on the world stage. He's not sure close in any of them, but he does have many states that could flip. Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and NH look like the best bet. Either way, probably hard to speculate now, as the debates will shake things up a bit. Curious to see how it goes, let's see how much Trump prepared... I'm hoping for something good, something that can change the mind of a voter. It's not many times that people actually look at Trump without the lens of the media. I stand strong in my sentiment that the more people that see real Trump, the more people will vote for him.
You should probably re-evaluate whether that was a pro-Trump article.
|
On September 26 2016 00:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 00:24 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 25 2016 23:41 Gorsameth wrote:On September 25 2016 23:29 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 25 2016 23:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 25 2016 14:53 woody60707 wrote:On September 25 2016 13:18 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2016 11:55 biology]major wrote:On September 25 2016 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 25 2016 11:48 biology]major wrote:
This is just poor training, they could have taken a defensive posture and called for backup. No excuses for this kind of killing. I'm sure it will be fixed though. And what would have happened if they had called for backup? Then they have 4-6 police instead of 1-2. the sitation doesn't change at all heck it makes it worse as more bullets can go off in a crowded neighborhood. And a defensive posture? What the hell is that suppose to be when you're pointing your gun at him anyway. It means you take cover and keep repeating commands, surround him when back up arrives and basically force him to be the aggressor before shooting him. Pretty much this. If you can't resolve a situation yourself without killing the guy and there is no immediate threat then just get more tools and try to change the situation. He was an immediate threat. That's why they shot. As mentioned in this thread and several other places, what passes for "immediate threat" in a number of these police shootings would get soldiers punished in a war zone if they were so trigger-happy with their weapons. That's because its comparing two different things. One can start a large scale war, another can only start a riot. Warzone kinda implies the war has already started... but you know, whatever you need to say to convince yourself there is no systematic problem with the US police force. You guys are saying a lot of things without offering any solutions. The solution has been given repeatedly. Train your cops properly so they know how to deal with a dangerous situation without shooting first. The vast majority of these high profile shootings could have been prevented with proper training. Heck how long ago was it, 1-2 weeks?, where we had a cop getting fired for not killing a man who was a danger to no one but himself. The rest of the Western world manages to properly train their police force. Even if you take into account the increased gun violence in the US. Train your officers and stop accepting 'shoot first, never ask questions' as an acceptable stance.
It is not just the training, it is stopping the office culture that tells them the training is worthless. A lot of police talk about how they get a ton of training and then are told it is all worthless by their first partner and that the partner will teach them "how to survive."
|
The best way to get things to change is to suggest specific reforms that would lead the police to reform their culture and to vote for people who will see those reforms implemented. Especially at the local level. Also help others vote, especially those who supposedly can't afford to find transportation to the DMV to register to vote and to have ID.
The best way to get nothing done is to take a "fuck the police" attitude, treat all cops as if they're criminals, refuse to comply with their commands, and look for every shooting you can as further evidence that all cops are crooks (even when, in a lot of those cases, the cops were fully justified in shooting).
|
On September 26 2016 00:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Either way, probably hard to speculate now, as the debates will shake things up a bit. Curious to see how it goes, let's see how much Trump prepared... I'm hoping for something good, something that can change the mind of a voter. It's not many times that people actually look at Trump without the lens of the media. I stand strong in my sentiment that the more people that see real Trump, the more people will vote for him.
Even more of a misanthrope than myself, I see.
|
On September 26 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote:
The best way to get things to change is to suggest specific reforms that would lead the police to reform their culture and to vote for people who will see those reforms implemented. Especially at the local level. Also help others vote, especially those who supposedly can't afford to find transportation to the DMV to register to vote and to have ID.
The best way to get nothing done is to take a "fuck the police" attitude, treat all cops as if they're criminals, refuse to comply with their commands, and look for every shooting you can as further evidence that all cops are crooks (even when, in a lot of those cases, the cops were fully justified in shooting).
That's why groups like BLM is not a progressive group.
It is not a sane or a progressive brand and only makes the situation worse.
|
On September 26 2016 02:03 Fwmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 00:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Either way, probably hard to speculate now, as the debates will shake things up a bit. Curious to see how it goes, let's see how much Trump prepared... I'm hoping for something good, something that can change the mind of a voter. It's not many times that people actually look at Trump without the lens of the media. I stand strong in my sentiment that the more people that see real Trump, the more people will vote for him. Even more of a misanthrope than myself, I see.
Is this not exactly what we saw this election? Media painting him out to be a monster, and the further we got, the more we saw he's not a bad guy at all, just maybe a bit immature, inexperienced, or ignorant to the current system (in the eyes of some).
He wouldn't be polling 1-2% lower than Hillary if he was what some of you here make him out to be.
|
United States44286 Posts
On September 25 2016 14:53 woody60707 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 13:18 KwarK wrote:On September 25 2016 11:55 biology]major wrote:On September 25 2016 11:53 Sermokala wrote:On September 25 2016 11:48 biology]major wrote:
This is just poor training, they could have taken a defensive posture and called for backup. No excuses for this kind of killing. I'm sure it will be fixed though. And what would have happened if they had called for backup? Then they have 4-6 police instead of 1-2. the sitation doesn't change at all heck it makes it worse as more bullets can go off in a crowded neighborhood. And a defensive posture? What the hell is that suppose to be when you're pointing your gun at him anyway. It means you take cover and keep repeating commands, surround him when back up arrives and basically force him to be the aggressor before shooting him. Pretty much this. If you can't resolve a situation yourself without killing the guy and there is no immediate threat then just get more tools and try to change the situation. He was an immediate threat. That's why they shot.
The video I just watched showed him walking away from them and getting shot in the back.
|
Trump isn't a monster, as long as you ignore all of his actions during his entire adult life. And the endless documentation of those actions. Because if you believe even throw out 75-80% of what is out there, that remaining amount still makes him completely not qualified to be president.
|
United States44286 Posts
On September 26 2016 02:06 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote:
The best way to get things to change is to suggest specific reforms that would lead the police to reform their culture and to vote for people who will see those reforms implemented. Especially at the local level. Also help others vote, especially those who supposedly can't afford to find transportation to the DMV to register to vote and to have ID.
The best way to get nothing done is to take a "fuck the police" attitude, treat all cops as if they're criminals, refuse to comply with their commands, and look for every shooting you can as further evidence that all cops are crooks (even when, in a lot of those cases, the cops were fully justified in shooting). That's why groups like BLM is not a progressive group. It is not a sane or a progressive brand and only makes the situation worse.
Does it though? Because in Ferguson, for example, following the BLM intervention the Justice Department stepped in and did an official inquiry which concluded that there were institutional issues which had been unresolved for years and which needed to be fixed. I'm not sure how you could argue that BLM made things worse for the people of Ferguson when nobody was interested in fixing the unconstitutional behaviour before BLM and now the Justice Department gives a shit. Seems to me a lot like they made things better.
But maybe they should have just waited for someone to come along and give them their constitutional rights. After all they've only waited 148 years, far too soon to act.
|
On September 26 2016 02:12 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 02:03 Fwmeh wrote:On September 26 2016 00:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Either way, probably hard to speculate now, as the debates will shake things up a bit. Curious to see how it goes, let's see how much Trump prepared... I'm hoping for something good, something that can change the mind of a voter. It's not many times that people actually look at Trump without the lens of the media. I stand strong in my sentiment that the more people that see real Trump, the more people will vote for him. Even more of a misanthrope than myself, I see. Is this not exactly what we saw this election? Media painting him out to be a monster, and the further we got, the more we saw he's not a bad guy at all, just maybe a bit immature, inexperienced, or ignorant to the current system (in the eyes of some).
And maybe a bit sexist and racist. But no biggie!
|
United States44286 Posts
On September 26 2016 02:19 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 02:12 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 02:03 Fwmeh wrote:On September 26 2016 00:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Either way, probably hard to speculate now, as the debates will shake things up a bit. Curious to see how it goes, let's see how much Trump prepared... I'm hoping for something good, something that can change the mind of a voter. It's not many times that people actually look at Trump without the lens of the media. I stand strong in my sentiment that the more people that see real Trump, the more people will vote for him. Even more of a misanthrope than myself, I see. Is this not exactly what we saw this election? Media painting him out to be a monster, and the further we got, the more we saw he's not a bad guy at all, just maybe a bit immature, inexperienced, or ignorant to the current system (in the eyes of some). And maybe a bit sexist and racist. But no biggie!
Oh, and simultaneously completely ignorant of the problems facing America and certain that the solutions he'd do would be applicable. Getting sexually harassed at your job? Ask your billionaire father for a new job. Problem solved. EZ EZ.
|
On September 26 2016 02:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 02:19 TheDwf wrote:On September 26 2016 02:12 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 02:03 Fwmeh wrote:On September 26 2016 00:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Either way, probably hard to speculate now, as the debates will shake things up a bit. Curious to see how it goes, let's see how much Trump prepared... I'm hoping for something good, something that can change the mind of a voter. It's not many times that people actually look at Trump without the lens of the media. I stand strong in my sentiment that the more people that see real Trump, the more people will vote for him. Even more of a misanthrope than myself, I see. Is this not exactly what we saw this election? Media painting him out to be a monster, and the further we got, the more we saw he's not a bad guy at all, just maybe a bit immature, inexperienced, or ignorant to the current system (in the eyes of some). And maybe a bit sexist and racist. But no biggie! Oh, and simultaneously completely ignorant of the problems facing America and certain that the solutions he'd do would be applicable. Getting sexually harassed at your job? Ask your billionaire father for a new job. Problem solved. EZ EZ.
I also forgot the complete denial of climate change.
Or the pro-torture positions.
Or... [insert never-ending list of crap]
At least the guy likes to build walls!
|
Monster? no.
unfit for presidency? yes.
|
On September 26 2016 02:19 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 02:12 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 02:03 Fwmeh wrote:On September 26 2016 00:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Either way, probably hard to speculate now, as the debates will shake things up a bit. Curious to see how it goes, let's see how much Trump prepared... I'm hoping for something good, something that can change the mind of a voter. It's not many times that people actually look at Trump without the lens of the media. I stand strong in my sentiment that the more people that see real Trump, the more people will vote for him. Even more of a misanthrope than myself, I see. Is this not exactly what we saw this election? Media painting him out to be a monster, and the further we got, the more we saw he's not a bad guy at all, just maybe a bit immature, inexperienced, or ignorant to the current system (in the eyes of some). And maybe a bit sexist and racist. But no biggie!
If you think Trump is racist or sexist you know nothing about him.
Either way, he's nothing out of the ordinary compared to an average citizen in terms of character... So unless you're calling 75% of the population monsters, Trump is fine.
|
On September 26 2016 02:23 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 02:19 TheDwf wrote:On September 26 2016 02:12 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 02:03 Fwmeh wrote:On September 26 2016 00:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Either way, probably hard to speculate now, as the debates will shake things up a bit. Curious to see how it goes, let's see how much Trump prepared... I'm hoping for something good, something that can change the mind of a voter. It's not many times that people actually look at Trump without the lens of the media. I stand strong in my sentiment that the more people that see real Trump, the more people will vote for him. Even more of a misanthrope than myself, I see. Is this not exactly what we saw this election? Media painting him out to be a monster, and the further we got, the more we saw he's not a bad guy at all, just maybe a bit immature, inexperienced, or ignorant to the current system (in the eyes of some). And maybe a bit sexist and racist. But no biggie! If you think Trump is racist or sexist you know nothing about him.
Let me guess, he has a Black friend?
|
On September 26 2016 02:23 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 02:19 TheDwf wrote:On September 26 2016 02:12 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 02:03 Fwmeh wrote:On September 26 2016 00:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Either way, probably hard to speculate now, as the debates will shake things up a bit. Curious to see how it goes, let's see how much Trump prepared... I'm hoping for something good, something that can change the mind of a voter. It's not many times that people actually look at Trump without the lens of the media. I stand strong in my sentiment that the more people that see real Trump, the more people will vote for him. Even more of a misanthrope than myself, I see. Is this not exactly what we saw this election? Media painting him out to be a monster, and the further we got, the more we saw he's not a bad guy at all, just maybe a bit immature, inexperienced, or ignorant to the current system (in the eyes of some). And maybe a bit sexist and racist. But no biggie! If you think Trump is racist or sexist you know nothing about him. Either way, he's nothing out of the ordinary compared to an average citizen in terms of character... So unless you're calling 75% of the population monsters, Trump is fine.
75% sounds about right lol
|
On September 26 2016 02:27 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 02:23 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 02:19 TheDwf wrote:On September 26 2016 02:12 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 26 2016 02:03 Fwmeh wrote:On September 26 2016 00:22 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Either way, probably hard to speculate now, as the debates will shake things up a bit. Curious to see how it goes, let's see how much Trump prepared... I'm hoping for something good, something that can change the mind of a voter. It's not many times that people actually look at Trump without the lens of the media. I stand strong in my sentiment that the more people that see real Trump, the more people will vote for him. Even more of a misanthrope than myself, I see. Is this not exactly what we saw this election? Media painting him out to be a monster, and the further we got, the more we saw he's not a bad guy at all, just maybe a bit immature, inexperienced, or ignorant to the current system (in the eyes of some). And maybe a bit sexist and racist. But no biggie! If you think Trump is racist or sexist you know nothing about him. Either way, he's nothing out of the ordinary compared to an average citizen in terms of character... So unless you're calling 75% of the population monsters, Trump is fine. 75% sounds about right lol
69% white, 75% trump
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
